Saturday, May 12, 2012

Evolutionists Now Formulating Teaching Standards That States Should Adopt “In Whole, Without Alteration”

Evolutionists are now formulating scientifically archaic teaching standards they want the states to follow “in whole, without alteration.” Our evolution-drenched science education in the U.S. is pathetic, with science literacy scraping the bottom the barrel. And now evolutionists are prescribing more scientific lies mandating evolutionary dogma. For a century evolution has corrupted science and science education alike, teaching a bizarre, upside-down version of the facts and suppressing the true science. Evolutionists have literally filled textbooks with unabashed lies that have left students without a clue about the real biology involved. And now they have just raised the ante, mandating the same old lies for the states to adopt “in whole, without alteration.”

In these new standards, middle schoolers, for example, are supposed to “Construct explanations for the anatomical similarities and differences between fossils of once living organisms and organisms living today.” And how is a twelve year old supposed to expound upon such a profound topic? The fine print explains: “Students should use the record of evolutionary descent between ancient and modern-day organisms.”

This is pure indoctrination. There is no other way to put it. Presenting young students with a problem way over their head, and feeding them a religiously-motivated, anti scientific answer, is pure indoctrination. That is to say nothing about the fact that this is terrible pedagogy. No wonder our students can’t stand science.

Unfortunately that example is typical. Middle schoolers are also to learn that:

Anatomical similarities and differences between various organisms living today, and between them and organisms in the fossil record, enable the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of evolutionary descent.

Again, the young student is confronted with a false dogma that is imposed on the science. Of course the real science enables no such thing. The so-called “lines of evolutionary descent” are contradicted, not supported, by the empirical evidence. Even evolutionists are quietly finally admitting to themselves that the evolution tree doesn’t work. But of course they won’t tell the students.

Genetic information, like the fossil record, also provides evidence of evolution. DNA sequences vary among species, but there are many overlaps; in fact, the ongoing branching that produces multiple lines of descent can be inferred by comparing the DNA sequences of different organisms. Such information is also derivable from the similarities and differences in amino acid sequences and from anatomical and embryological evidence.

The embryological evidence reveals profound non homologous development pathways even in sister species which contradicts the expected evolutionary pattern. Such contradictions are literally ubiquitous in the anatomical and genetic data. Just a few examples we have recently looked at are here, here and here.

High schoolers are also to “explain the process by which natural selection leads to adaptations.” This evolutionary myth that adaptations arise by the slow process natural selection acting on random change appears several times in the standards, in spite of the fact that science shows that adaptations arise rapidly and non randomly in direct response to environmental shifts. Again, even some brave evolutionists are admitting these findings to each other.

All of this mythology is brought to us by evolutionists. At one point they write:

The section begins with a discussion of the converging evidence for common ancestry that has emerged from a variety of sources (e.g., comparative anatomy and embryology, molecular biology and genetics).

But the comparative anatomy, embryonic and molecular data do not converge on common ancestry, they contradict the common ancestry pattern. This is an uncontroversial, scientific fact. The dogma could not be more obvious.

Finally, the core ideas in the life sciences culminate with the principle that evolution can explain how the diversity that is observed within species has led to the diversity of life across species through a process of descent with adaptive modification. Evolution also accounts for the remarkable similarity of the fundamental characteristics of all species.

Again, this is evolutionary mythology. And again, even brave evolutionists are admitting that they cannot explain how the massive changes evolution requires came about. And those “fundamental characteristics” are not so fundamental. It is pathetic to see evolutionists continue to proclaim evidence that has long since been contradicted by the science.

These standards are yet another example of how evolution is not only corrupting science but doing so at the expense of the taxpayer. If this is the “Next-Generation Science Standards” then we are all in trouble.

207 comments:

In these government standards, middle schoolers, for example, are supposed to “Construct explanations for the anatomical similarities and differences between fossils of once living organisms and organisms living today.” And how is a twelve year old supposed to expound upon such a profound topic? The fine print explains: “Students should use the record of evolutionary descent between ancient and modern-day organisms.”

CH, you're a smart science guy with a PhD, right?

Go ahead and give us the correct answer since you think the guidelines provided are so bad.

Door's over that way when you decide to cut and run from the question, which you will. Guaranteed.

The correct answer is simple and obvious but Thorton is willingly blind to it. The designers used inheritance to design ever more complex organisms. Inheritance necessarily implies a hierarchy, i.e., a tree of life.

The difference between a designed tree of life and a Darwinian tree of life is that the former is not necessarily nested, i.e., common descent is not assumed. Based on the astronomical complexity and variety of living organisms, intelligent design predicts the finding of non-nested inheritance in the tree of life. This is a falsifiable prediction, one which is on the verge of being corroborated given recent advances in the use of fast computers and powerful analysis software in computational biology.

When that happens, there shall be much weeping and gnashing of teeth in the evolutionist camp. I'll be watching on the other side with a bag of popcorn.

"In what may be the most fraudulent, or at least wasteful, use of tax dollars, your federal government (remember the “of the people, by the people, for the people” part?) is now formulating scientifically archaic teaching standards it wants the states to follow “in whole, without alteration.” One look at these standards makes obvious that this isn’t about a benevolent Uncle Sam looking out for the good of the republic."

Is the federal government involved in the development of the Next Generation Science Standards?

No. The federal government is not involved in this effort. It is state-led, and states will decide whether or not to adopt the standards. The work undertaken by both the NRC and Achieve is being supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. No federal funds have or will be used to develop the standards.

How did you get through the website to find your quotes to spin, without noticing that?

I wish it was spin. Those quotes come right out of their site, and are self-explanatory. You're in the no-spin zone.

And what would you suggest as a science curriculum?

We could have a long discussion about pedagogy. Fascinating and important topic. I'm not dogmatic about one particular way. In fact, I'm not even dead set against teaching from a theory-perspective, as is obviously happening here. But shouldn't we at least be honest about the standing of the theory, and how the evidence bears on the theory?

I take it back on the quotes-they are pretty dry statements of accepted science.

"In fact, I'm not even dead set against teaching from a theory-perspective"

I think theory-free education would be a bit terrifying to most students. Teaching observation behind the theory is important, but isn't, say, the Atomic orbital model, a good summary for a lot of data. One that explains and predicts a lot of behavior?

"But shouldn't we at least be honest about the standing of the theory, and how the evidence bears on the theory?"

Absolutely. And I hope the states make the right decision, and go with the a curriculum supported by the scientific community, and these prestigious foundations and corporations.

RobertC: I think theory-free education would be a bit terrifying to most students.

CH: I don’t see why that need be so terrifying.

I don't see how it's possible to have theory free education. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to how that would be possible. Please be specific.

CH: And not only a curriculum that is supported by those organizations, but also is not counterfactual.

Counterfactual? Based on which theory?

Again, there are an infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same empirical observations, yet assume something completely different is going on, in reality. As such, it's unclear how you can extrapolate observations without *first* putting them into an explanatory theory.

RobertC: I think theory-free education would be a bit terrifying to most students.

CH: I don’t see why that need be so terrifying.

Because, while high school students might be able to grasp and digest orbital theory, I really doubt they could memorize all the observations that support it-not to mention the wrinkles, like relativistic quantum chemistry.

If we're talking about evolution, should we teach the theory as scientists state it, or have them read a few million pubmed articles supporting it?

Theory summarizes and predicts.

Re orbital theory, you say: "Sure. In fact that might a good example for teaching students the subtleties of evidence versus theories."

I'd agree. And like orbital theory, the theory of evolution by and large encompasses the data, is descriptive and predictive.

Are there some high-level details of interest? Perhaps. But you seem to think some of the interesting details of evolutionary theory are "falsifications" or "counterfactual." This is overstating the case.

Are there some high-level details of interest? Perhaps. But you seem to think some of the interesting details of evolutionary theory are "falsifications" or "counterfactual." This is overstating the case.

Well Robert that's the question isn't it? When explosions of diversity occur followed by extinctions, when even evolutionists agree that adaptive change we observe probably doesn't add up to large-scale evolutionary change so some other mechanism is needed, when even the adaptive change we do observe arises from fantastically complex mechanisms that respond to environmental challenges, when the patterns of the species contradict the expected evolutionary pattern significantly (not just evolutionary "noise"), then I just can't see how you can maintain that evolution on par with gravity. I don't see how you can say the evidence overwhelmingly support evolution. Am I being unreasonable or irrational, as evolutionists insist anyone who doubts must be? Am I anti science?

All science education should be about theories, because that is the content of science: provisional explanatory theories for the data, that are subject to revision in the light of new data.

Good elementary school teaching of sciences should give children a thorough grounding in the principles of hypothesis testing, an understanding of measurement error, and the concept of models as our current best approximations to reality.

Are you familiar with the problem of general relatively and quantum mechanics gravity? We simply do not have a working theory of quantum gravity that works at the small scale.

In fact, string theory is one attempt at unifying them both.

Of course, this isn't really a problem as we know that all theories. contain errors to some degree. This is why we still teach both quantum mechanics and general relatively in the classroom.

This doesn't mean that our theories of general relatively or quantum mechanics are meaningless. It's simply part of the process. We expect incompleteness because science is no longer based on pre-enlighteent views on how we as human begins create knowledge.

And this applies to not only evolutionary theory, but to all fields.

So, again, it seems that you objection is based on a number of assumptions about what it means to say a theory is true, the default position of science on design, etc.

It's just a standard case of projection. Hunter knows full well that his religious beliefs are based on nothing but lies and dogma; so he reacts by claiming that science is no better. Pathetic, really.

Don't you fear! Cornelius is going to give us the correct answers to the recommended test questions! He's going to explain the true science that those evil evos have been hiding so long! You just wait!

It's just a standard case of projection. Shallit knows full well that his religious beliefs are based on nothing but lies and dogma; so he reacts by claiming that Hunter is no better. Pathetic, really.

Don't you fear! Cornelius is going to give us the correct answers to the recommended test questions! He's going to explain the true science that those evil evos have been hiding so long! You just wait!

Hunter has been doing just that, over and over. You just hope your feeble protests are worth more than spit. But everybody knows you're a troll, Thorton.

Evolution theory is not even wrong but a conglomerate of contradictory ideas that never materialize in the theoretical justification context: it is an a priori truth fully accepted without questioning except for those who have the guts to question Darwin. What are Darwinians afraid of having students to examine these anomalies???

Cornelius couldn't do a statistical test of phylogenetic congruence of datasets to save his life. He cherry-picks little bits of data, and quote-mines articles, and ignores the overwhelmingly dominant pattern, which is what the actual scientists in the actual relevant field are looking at. The dominant pattern is a tree -- overwhelmingly in multicellular organisms, and still very strong even in unicellular microbes which have some lateral transfer.

Why should anyone who does know this -- i.e., actual well-educated people in biology, who are writing textbooks and educational standards -- pay any attention at all to a crank like Cornelius Hunter, who can't even explain or perform the basic analyses that he doesn't even know about?

Cornelius couldn't do a statistical test of geocentrism to save his life. He cherry-picks little bits of data like retrograde motion, and quote-mines articles, and ignores the overwhelmingly dominant pattern, which is what the actual astronomers are looking at. The dominant pattern is geocentrism -- overwhelmingly in planetary motion, and still very strong even in comets which have some lateral motion.

What you're ignoring is that science isn't statistics. That's why we have scientists.

Thorton, since the scientific method itself cannot be based in materialism, why do you consider atheistic materialists to be 'scientific'?

Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

"Nonphysical formalism not only describes, but preceded physicality and the Big BangFormalism prescribed, organized and continues to govern physicodynamics."http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/ag

This 'lack of a guarantee', for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;

Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind

What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

Philosopher Sticks Up for God Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism. ~ Alvin Plantinga

The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);

"Cornelius couldn't do a statistical test of phylogenetic congruence of datasets to save his life."

I wouldn't say that, Nick. Hunter's published work is highly statistical.

Snip of an abstract of one: "The predictor selects the best-fit centroid at about 40% of the loci. The predicted probabilities are accurate and can be used to judge the confidence of each centroid prediction. For example, when filtering out centroids with <0.50 probability, the predictor is 65% accurate, although such high-probability centroids occur at only 28% of the loci."

Which made his statement: "What you're ignoring is that science isn't statistics. That's why we have scientists." seem all the more odd to me....

CH:What you're ignoring is that science isn't statistics. That's why we have scientists.

What on earth does this statement mean? Obviously "statistics" and "science" don't mean the same thing, but you are surely not suggesting that quantitative data analysis in science isn't absolutely reliant on statistical methods?

In your very own scientific output you make copious use of statistical methods, as, indeed, you must?

"Cornelius couldn't do a statistical test of phylogenetic congruence of datasets to save his life."

I wouldn't say that, Nick. Hunter's published work is highly statistical.

Snip of an abstract of one: "The predictor selects the best-fit centroid at about 40% of the loci. The predicted probabilities are accurate and can be used to judge the confidence of each centroid prediction. For example, when filtering out centroids with <0.50 probability, the predictor is 65% accurate, although such high-probability centroids occur at only 28% of the loci."

Which made his statement: "What you're ignoring is that science isn't statistics. That's why we have scientists." seem all the more odd to me....

Well, it's even more interesting that Cornelius has used statistics in his non-creationist work -- because when it comes to the phylogenetic trees, he just cherry-picks little bits of data that he thinks are contradictory, and refuses to do the necessary statistical analysis to examine the data as a whole.

The bit you quoted involved comparing predictors of something to the centroids. How valid would it be if, in that study, Cornelius had picked only the predictions that agreed, or only the predictions that disagreed? It would be cherry-picking, it would be laughed at by scientists.

Yet Cornelius feels free to engage in such cherry-picking when it comes to the phylogenetic tree, despite the fact that there are actual peer-reviewed papers specifically testing whether large datasets as a whole support the claim that there is a phylogenetic tree structure in the data.

It's true that you need to know a bit more than the average statistician to do these tests -- minimally, you have to know how to represent a phylogenetic tree as a Newick file, and then how to map characters onto the tree according to a parsimony criterion or some other optimality criterion -- but it's not all that hard, really.

See here for starters:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

Yet Cornelius feels free to engage in such cherry-picking when it comes to the phylogenetic tree,

This is how a geocentrist would reply to a heliocentrist. It is a way to protect a theory that has been contradicted by the data.

despite the fact that there are actual peer-reviewed papers specifically testing whether large datasets as a whole support the claim that there is a phylogenetic tree structure in the data.

These types of tests use comparisons of *homologous* characters. *That’s* cherry picking. So the evolutionists pre-filter the data, and then accuse me of cherry-picking.

It's true that you need to know a bit more than the average statistician to do these tests --

It is not that you need to know more about the tests than a statistician. You need to know about the data your feeding it. Can’t just turn the crank on a statistical test.

minimally, you have to know how to represent a phylogenetic tree as a Newick file, and then how to map characters onto the tree according to a parsimony criterion or some other optimality criterion -- but it's not all that hard, really.

I couldn’t have explained it better myself. An excellent example of how evolution views science.

Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Paul Nelson - Feb. 2010Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa.html

Repeated acquisition and loss of complex body form characters: Cornelius Hunter - December 2011 Excerpt: In other words, morphological patterns in biology, including the pentadactyl structure, do not fit the common descent model. This has evolutionists doing mental gymnastics as limbs and other designs must come and go as needed to make sense of evolution. They are lost, then reevolved, then lost, then whatever. It is all just storytelling. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/12/repeated-acquisition-and-loss-of.html

If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following 'true' statement:

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils

This following article reveals how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:

More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism - March 2010http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the.html

The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again - Casey Luskin - November 5, 2011 Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that's the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_case_of_the_mysterious_hoa052571.html

A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_3.html#more

A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - Didier Raoult - May 2010Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations.http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html

Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

I would like to point out that this, 'annihilation' of Darwin's genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed 'world leading expert' on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was 'Intelligently Designed' for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year.

One of the most blatant examples of a known falsehood being taught as proof of evolution is Haeckel's Embryo drawings. Though the drawings have been known to be fraudulent for over 100 years, they are still propagated in textbooks;

Evolution Just Took Another Hit—Right Where it Counts - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012Excerpt: These reproduction subsystems, according to evolution, should align with the other biological subsystems to form a consistent evolutionary tree. This consistency is, evolutionists say, a powerful confirmation of their idea. Except when it isn’t. Now a tiny lizard from Africa has been found to have a reproduction subsystem that is unique and remarkably similar to that of humans.http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/evolution-just-took-another-hitright.html

A Piece from the Developmental Symphony - February 2012Excerpt: Embryonic development is an astounding process that seems to happen "automatically.",,, The timing of each step is too precise and the complexity is too intricate to assume that these processes are the mere accumulation by happenstance of changes to regulatory genes. Each gene plays its role at a certain time, and like a symphony, each is activated and silenced in turn such that the final result is a grand performance of orchestrated effort that could only have occurred through design.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/a_piece_from_th055921.html

In fact embryonic development is now found to be unique for each mammalian species as well:

The mouse is not enough - February 2011 Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.” http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57986/

Transcription Factors: More Species-Specific Biology - Cornelius Hunter - October 2011 Excerpt: In fact, the binding sites are often so-called “lineage-specific,” meaning that the transcription factor binds to a section of DNA that is unique to that species. As one writer explained: "Remarkably, many of these RABS [repeat-associated binding sites] were found in lineage-specific repeat elements that are absent in the comparison species, suggesting that large numbers of binding sites arose more recently in evolution and may have rewired the regulatory architecture in embryonic stem cells on a substantial scale." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/10/transcription-factors-more-species.html

Another Key Evidence For Evolution is Getting Squashed - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012Excerpt: Confusion abounds and the evolutionists conclude, contra the traditional evolution view, that given the early embryo of an animal species, it would be possible to infer “comparatively little about its evolutionary trajectory.” That once powerful evidence that Darwin and the evolutionists proclaimed is now in the crowded dustbin of evolutionary proofs.http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/another-key-evidence-for-evolution-is.html

etc.. etc.. etc..

Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsificationhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit

Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Informationhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

When I taugth High School biology, my students oftne expressed doubts about evolution. Some objected on religious grounds. Some students said that it just doesn't make sense. You can't buld complex things by accident.

When I taugth High School biology, my students oftne expressed doubts about evolution. Some objected on religious grounds. Some students said that it just doesn't make sense. You can't buld complex things by accident.

I bet you weren't knowledgeable and/or honest enough to correct their misunderstandings either.

I taught the curriculum I was directed to teach. The students decided for themselves. I guess anyone who questions evolution is "misunderstanding." It's inconceivable to an evolutionist than an honest, intelligent, informed person can question evolution. If that isn't dogmatic, I don't know what is.

The faked drawing are fraud whether I consider them fraud or not. Anyone with eyes can tell that. And I don't like lying to students.

I must believe thst you never taught high school if you believe teena can't reason or undertand technical stuff. And the focus now in education is on encouraging students to think for themselves. We want then to develop higher level thinking skills. Evolutionist are bucking that trend. They can't let students think for themselves.

So you believe that no intelligent, informed person can question evolution without being mistaken? Why isn't that dogmatism?

And I guess I should have said in my post "accidents acted on by natural selection." But some of my students still questioned if that is sufficient to explain something like the excretory system, or transcription. See, they like to think for themselves. And some students prefer to get their truth from the Bible. Their choice.

The faked drawing are fraud whether I consider them fraud or not. Anyone with eyes can tell that. And I don't like lying to students.

Yet you did it anyway by substituting your ignorance and misunderstanding for their approved lesson plan. You deserve to be fired.

I must believe thst you never taught high school if you believe teena can't reason or undertand technical stuff.

You didn't teach them the technical stuff. That doesn't come until college. When you tell teens "I have to teach this but I don't believe it", even with your body language, you are failing both them and society. You deserve to be fired.

So you believe that no intelligent, informed person can question evolution without being mistaken?

Your criticism comes from ignorance. You are not an intelligent, informed person.

Teens can be very adept with computers. What exactly do you mean by technial in this context? I taught them about DNA, mutations, natural selection, etc. I guess you mean to say that they should be indoctrinated until they are old enough to understand.

And are you agreeing with me that evolutionist believe that no intelligent informed person can question evolution?

CH: Evolutionists are now formulating scientifically archaic teaching standards they want the states to follow “in whole, without alteration.”

What's archaic is your pre-enlightenment conception of human knowledge that is either irrational, supernatural or absent all together. Your objection to evolutionary theory suffers from the same flawed conception.

CH: Of course the real science enables no such thing. The so-called “lines of evolutionary descent” are contradicted, not supported, by the empirical evidence.

Of course, this would only be the case if one still assumes "real science" is still based on natural theology - i.e what we observe "must be just what the designer must have wanted." Therefore, what we observe was a specific goal that would have had to been hit, etc.

We keep pointing out this isn't neutral position. However, you have yet to acknowledge the issue. Instead, you keep making the same argument over again over again.

It's as if you cannot recognize science based on natural theology as an idea that would be subject to criticism. Nor do you need to disclose or argue for this idea since you know your target audience shares the same definition of "real science."

So the first problem is that when evolutionists claim that statistical analyses prove common descent beyond all rational doubt, they are prefiltering the data. This gets back to my comment that science isn't statistics. That's why we have scientists. You said that response was pathetic. No oleg, if you’re looking for a pathetic response, it would be yours, when you said “No, science isn't statistics, but statistics is one of the tools we use in science.” Of course, I didn’t say otherwise. You’re rebutting a strawman. The point is you can’t just turn the crank on some statistical test. To ignore all kinds of contradictory data is not science.

Next you said that “Statistical analyses show strong agreement with common descent and you have to cherry-pick the data to argue otherwise.”

You have that *exactly* backwards. It is precisely that selection, or cherry-picking as you call it, that makes the case common descent. Biology is literally rampant with contradictory evidence.

Another problem is that these contradictory data are not just minor deviations or outliers. It is not as though these contradictions are within a reasonable “noise” level of some evolutionary process. No these are major deviations for which evolutionists can only speculate with unfounded just-so stories.

So when you conclude:

Which means it is you who is lying.

I’m afraid you have failed to make your case. In fact, we’re right back to the problem that it is evolutionists who are are misrepresenting the evidence

CH:The point is you can’t just turn the crank on some statistical test. To ignore all kinds of contradictory data is not science.

No, indeed, you can't, but that isn't the same as saying "science isn't statistics". Statistical methods are absolutely core to scientific hypothesis testing. That doesn't mean that a statistic is a guarantee of sound data analysis, obviously; a statistical analysis is only as good as the operationalisation of the hypotheses, and the confidence in your parameterisation is only as good as the fit of your model.

And if your model is a very poor fit, you may have to consider a revised model.

But a revised model is not a "just so story", and revising your model is the very opposite of "ignoring contradictory data".

A revised model needs to be tested. Dismissing new models as "just so stories" is simply poisoning the well. Lynn Margulis symbiosis model was a revised model, but tests of her hypothesis suggest that it is supported by data. Same with HGT.

And your bat-dolphin sonar case turned out not to be "contradictory" anyway, as is the case with so many "Evolution in its Death-Throes!" stories that IDists love to headline!

CH: You have that *exactly* backwards. It is precisely that selection, or cherry-picking as you call it, that makes the case common descent. Biology is literally rampant with contradictory evidence.

Common descent is a form of conjectured genetic variation that results in non-explanatory knowledge. The addition of additional mechanisms, in addition to common decent, isn't contradictory evidence as long as these mechanisms are non-explanatory as well.

In fact, we will discover additional mechanisms that are also non-explanatory in nature. Nor will ever know every single mechanism. This isn't a problem for science because we know that scientific theories always contain errors, always reveal new problems to solve, etc.

In other words, your outlook on evolution as a failed theory is based on assumptions about how we as human beings create knowledge, or lack there of. You merely apply these assumptions to scientific theories you find objectionable.

CH: An important topic. I have noted my thoughts here, for record. Those who want to get a balancing side of the story without being immersed in the usual materialist ideologue floodtide of ad hominems etc, can have a look. KF

Please Gordon, the fallacious abuse of the loaded word “materialist” serves only to drag a hot distractive red herring across the track of truth, and to lead it out to a strawman soaked in nasty ad hominem personal attacks; which on being ignited poisons, clouds and chokes the atmosphere with polarizing smoke.

"All, duly rubber-stamped by a bi-partisan group of state governors [say the magic word: "consensus"] and a sprinkling of some captains of industry.

Any properly trained Alinsky Rules for Radicals method “Community Organizer” would be drooling at the prospect."

I think you misunderstand Alinsky's work--putting him at the table with Governors and Industry is anachronistic. He was a community organizer, against, for example, terrible working and living conditions, and against institutional racism.

Your suggestion of "a broad, community based programme of education in origins science from a design theory perspective" that "should target the sort of community leadership that will be the core of the critical mass" IS Alinsky-style community organizing.

So before using someone's name as an insult, you should really make sure you don't agree with that individual's core methods and successes.

KF point is not a logical disagreement with the Alinky's methods,as you say he actually advocates them.

As before, it is shorthand. Fox- speak

" duly rubber stamped" , you may say that Obama had nothing to do with thIs but We know different.

"consensus" (when referring to opponents) an elite minority abridging the freedom of god fearing, good, Americans to speak the truth.Not to be confused with"consensus" ( when referring to themselves) an overwhelming majority of Citizens engaging in the freedom our Founding Father's envisioned for our Christian Nation

Please Gordon, the fallacious abuse of the loaded word “creationists” serves only to drag a hot distractive red herring across the track of truth, and to lead it out to a strawman soaked in nasty ad hominem personal attacks; which on being ignited poisons, clouds and chokes the atmosphere with polarizing smoke.

There. Fixed that for you. No doubt, you will refrain from using your usual canards and strawman arguments from now on. :-D

I believe that Thorton was parodying KF's rather dense prose,for the onlookers. Certainly Thorton doesn't eschew incivility in the face of perceived incivility. And thank bob,he didn't put any links in his response.

why do you have to push things past the limit. You are like a nasty drunk uncle at the party and we have to apologize to a nice guest for you.

Kairos, sorry about Thorton, he had few extra drinks.

Oh man, this is too funny!

Hate to burst your bubble Eugen, but velikovskys has it almost right. Only it wasn't a parody. Every one of those phrases was taken directly from various Gordon E. Mullings (GEM of TKI) rants at places like UD.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in the news again, downplaying the threat Israel poses to Iran.

"Israel is nothing more than a mosquito which cannot see the broad horizon of the Iranian nation," he said Saturday in northeastern Iran's Khorassan province, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

Of course, this is nothing new as Ahmadinejad is well known for spewing denial, doom and gloom about Israel and the Holocaust

"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," he told worshippers at Tehran University at the end of an annual anti-Israel "Qods (Jerusalem) Day" rally.

"They have created a myth in the name of the Holocaust and consider it above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in an address carried live on state television.

"This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end," he said in a speech broadcast live on state radio.

as to: “Statistical analyses show strong agreement with common descent and you have to cherry-pick the data to argue otherwise.”

HMMM??? Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics???

The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin - Background:"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable;http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21

Similarity Happens - Dr Ann Gauger - April 2012Excerpt: In the past, evolutionary biologists have dealt with homoplasy by ignoring it. Any trait identified as due to homoplasy was eliminated from their tree-drawing efforts. But now that we have access to DNA sequence data, we are finding more and more cases of homoplasy—similarity in sequence or structure that can’t possible be due to common descent—similarity that jumps across trees [2]. Phylogeneticists are urging caution, because the conflicting signals from different sequences can confuse tree-drawing algorithms [3]. The problem is deep, and crosses all taxonomic levels—it is not confined to just bacteria where horizontal gene transfer if common, or to the shallow branches of recently diverged species, where incomplete lineage sorting might be invoked [4]. And guess what? They still deal with it by eliminating the supposed homoplasy from the data set [4].

At some point though, one has to ask what the homoplasy is telling us. Why is it there? What can account for both kinds of similarity— homoplasy and homology? Some biologists retreat to a reflexive adaptationist position—sequences converge because they make organisms better adapted to their environment, and sequences diverge because they make them better suited to their environment. In other words, similarity happens!http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/20516952279/similarity-happens

Accidental origins: Where species come from - March 2010Excerpt: If speciation results from natural selection via many small changes, you would expect the branch lengths to fit a bell-shaped curve.,,, Instead, Pagel's team found that in 78 per cent of the trees, the best fit for the branch length distribution was another familiar curve, known as the exponential distribution. Like the bell curve, the exponential has a straightforward explanation - but it is a disquieting one for evolutionary biologists. The exponential is the pattern you get when you are waiting for some single, infrequent event to happen.,,,To Pagel, the implications for speciation are clear: "It isn't the accumulation of events that causes a speciation, it's single, rare events falling out of the sky, so to speak."http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527511.400-accidental-origins-where-species-come-from.html?page=2

Hunter: You have that *exactly* backwards. It is precisely that selection, or cherry-picking as you call it, that makes the case common descent. Biology is literally rampant with contradictory evidence.

Another problem is that these contradictory data are not just minor deviations or outliers. It is not as though these contradictions are within a reasonable “noise” level of some evolutionary process. No these are major deviations for which evolutionists can only speculate with unfounded just-so stories.

You assert here that there are too many contradictions, but you have never quantified how many. In fact, this is why biologists do statistical analyses: in order to see how well the data agree with the models based on common descent. They agree much better with common descent than with any other hypothesis that has been tested. Trying something quantitative. You were a biophysicist at some point.

You assert here that there are too many contradictions, but you have never quantified how many. In fact, this is why biologists do statistical analyses: in order to see how well the data agree with the models based on common descent.

Well then they are not doing a very good job. Selecting the data that are cooperative (or cherry-picking as you put it) is not going to indicate how well the data agree with common descent. Confirmation bias is ubiquitous in evolutionary thought.

They agree much better with common descent than with any other hypothesis that has been tested.

That wouldn’t support the evolutionary truth claims that it is a fact.

Though the neo-Darwinists use of statistics to try to make their case is extremely biased against intelligent design;,,,

Douglas Theobald's Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common DesignExcerpt: If you ignore common design, then the explanation for similarities between gene sequences must be common descent.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/douglas_theobalds_test_of_comm041071.html

The extremely ironic thing in neo-Darwinists trying to use statistics to prove that all life on earth is the result of purely material processes is that statistics itself is not reducible to a material basis. i.e. Neo-Darwinists are trying to use the transcendent mathematical logic of statistics to prove that man is a material being who doesn't have transcendent component to his being! i.e. a mind/soul!

notes:

Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galilei

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner Excerpt: The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm

i.e. the Materialist is at a complete loss to explain why this should be so, whereas the Christian Theist presupposes such ‘transcendent’ control of our temporal, material, reality,,,

John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

of note; 'the Word' is translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’. Logos happens to be the word from which we derive our modern word ‘Logic’.

Wheeler's Delayed Choice ExperimentExcerpt: The Delayed Choice experiment changes the boundary conditions of the Schrodinger equation after the particle enters the first beamsplitter.http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/TermPapers/WheelerDelayed.pdf

Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - videohttp://vimeo.com/38508798"Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel"John A. Wheeler

Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material realityhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

Ian, so you're gripe is not with the fact that neo-Darwinists are trying to use the transcendent mathematical logic of statistics to prove that man is a only a material being who doesn't have transcendent component to his being, i.e. doesn't have a mind/soul (lunacy extraordinaire on the neo-Darwinists part to do so), but your gripe is with the fact that reality itself, as revealed by breakthroughs in quantum mechanics, substantiates John 1:1 ??? Hmmm? Well I guess you are just trying to protect 'science'. But perhaps Ian, in order to keep from offending your sensibilities again, you can refresh my memory of exactly how the scientific method is even grounded in your atheistic materialism in the first place so that I may properly respect the boundaries you imagine should be obvious to me!

Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

"Nonphysical formalism not only describes, but preceded physicality and the Big BangFormalism prescribed, organized and continues to govern physicodynamics."http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/ag

Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening."http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html

Explain what? Explain how logic of any nature cannot be reduced to a mass and/or energy basis of materialism? Do you also deny that water is wet??? Well,, Okie Dokie, I guess the best way to show you this would be to show you that all the energy and mass of the universe are governed by transcendent mathematical laws that have not varied one iota since the universe's creation in the Big Bang:

Universality of transcendent constants, which our math is dependent on, is shown here:

The laws of the universe have been tested for variance. Tested for variance by people who apparently don't truly understand that if the laws of the universe were found to randomly vary, then that finding of random variance, would dramatically shake the mathematical foundation of the whole scientific enterprise (epistemological failure) since we could not ultimately depend on the consistency of the laws of the universe to stay the same in our experiments from one point in time to the next. Here are a few of the tests for variance that have been performed;

Einstein’s General Relativity Tested Again, Much More Stringently - 2010Excerpt: As Müller puts it, “If the time of freefall was extended to the age of the universe – 14 billion years – the time difference between the upper and lower routes would be a mere one thousandth of a second, and the accuracy of the measurement would be 60 ps, the time it takes for light to travel about a centimetre.”http://www.universetoday.com/56612/einsteins-general-relativity-tested-again-much-more-stringently/

Latest Test of Physical Constants Affirms Biblical Claim - Hugh Ross - September 2010Excerpt: The team’s measurements on two quasars (Q0458- 020 and Q2337-011, at redshifts = 1.561 and 1.361, respectively) indicated that all three fundamental physical constants have varied by no more than two parts per quadrillion per year over the last ten billion years—a measurement fifteen times more precise, and thus more restrictive, than any previous determination. The team’s findings add to the list of fundamental forces in physics demonstrated to be exceptionally constant over the universe’s history. This confirmation testifies of the Bible’s capacity to predict accurately a future scientific discovery far in advance. Among the holy books that undergird the religions of the world, the Bible stands alone in proclaiming that the laws governing the universe are fixed, or constant.http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-03.pdf

This following site discusses the many technical problems they had with the paper that recently (2010) tried to postulate variance within the fine structure constant:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming/#comment-367471

Stability of Coulomb Systems in a Magnetic Field - Charles FeffermanExcerpt of Abstract: I study N electrons and M protons in a magnetic field. It is shown that the total energy per particle is bounded below by a constant independent of M and N, provided the fine structure constant is small. Here, the total energy includes the energy of the magnetic field.http://www.jstor.org/pss/2367659?cookieSet=1

Testing Creation Using the Proton to Electron Mass RatioExcerpt: The bottom line is that the electron to proton mass ratio unquestionably joins the growing list of fundamental constants in physics demonstrated to be constant over the history of the universe.,,,http://www.reasons.org/TestingCreationUsingtheProtontoElectronMassRatio

GRBs Expand Astronomers' Toolbox - Nov. 2009Excerpt: a detailed analysis of the GRB (Gamma Ray Burst) in question demonstrated that photons of all energies arrived at essentially the same time. Consequently, these results falsify any quantum gravity models requiring the simplest form of a frothy space.http://www.reasons.org/GRBsExpandAstronomersToolbox

Moreover, not only is all the mass and energy of the universe governed by transcendent math, but mass and energy is found to reduce to transcendent information in quantum teleportation experiments:

The following experiments demonstrate that energy and mass reduce to quantum information;

How Teleportation Will Work -Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm

Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research PageExcerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,"http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of PittsburghExcerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf

,,,The following articles show that even atoms are subject to 'instantaneous' teleportation:,,,

Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groupsExcerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp

Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,,"What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts

,,,These following experiments show that the teleportation of information is indeed 'instantaneous', thus demonstrating transcendence, and even dominion, of space and time;,,,

Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves - April 2011Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lea

further notes:

Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

Penn astrophysicists zero in on gravity theory - May 11, 2012 Excerpt: One branch — dark energy — suggests that the vacuum of space has an energy associated with it and that energy causes the observed acceleration. The other falls under the umbrella of “scalar-tensor” gravity theories, which effectively posits a fifth force (beyond gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces) that alters gravity on cosmologically large scales.“These two possibilities are both radical in their own way,” Jain said. “One is saying that general relativity is correct, but we have this strange new form of energy. The other is saying we don't have a new form of energy, but gravity is not described by general relativity everywhere.” ,,, “We’ve been able to perform a powerful test using just 25 nearby galaxies that is more than a hundred times more stringent than standard cosmological tests,” Jain said. ,,, Jain and his colleagues ultimately did not see variation between their control sample of screened galaxies and their test sample of unscreened ones. Their results line up exactly with the prediction of Einstein’s general relativity.,,, “We find consistency with Einstein’s theory of gravity and we sharply narrow the space available to these other theories. Many of these theories are now ruled out by the data,” Jain said. With better data on nearby galaxies in the coming years, Jain expects that an entire class of gravity theories (which posit variance with General Relativity) could essentially be eliminated. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-penn-astrophysicists-gravity-theory.html

In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether.http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28

Is keeping score in baseball a transcendent mathematical logic? Statistics reduces data to mathematical form, just like keeping score in baseball. How are they different or if they are the same does using transcendent for everything reduce it to a meaningless term?

Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#

i.e. Please note that this principle also applies to the continued existence of material particles within space-time. i.e. Any material particle you can draw a circle around cannot explain its own continued existence within space-time. Moreover, this incompleteness principle for material particles has now been born out on the empirical level:

,,,Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:

‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm

i.e. Material particles cannot explain their own continued existence within space-time without referring to a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain their continued existence within space-time.

Of note, Theists have always maintained that God, who is beyond space and time, sustains and upholds this universe in its continued existence, whereas materialists, ever since the Greeks, held that the 'atom' was the foundation of reality i.e. that the material particle was 'self-sustaining'.

Revelation 4:10-11They lay their crowns before the throne and say: "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation (separation) of its 'infinite' information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. (i.e. a photon 'disappeared' from the 'material' universe when the entire information content of a photon was 'transcendently displaced' from the material universe by the experiment, when photon “c” transcendently became transmitted photon “a”). Thus, Quantum teleportation is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. 'transcendent' information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, telling energy exactly what to be and do in the experiment. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed and, in information demonstrating transcendence, and dominion, of space-time and matter-energy, becomes the only known entity that can satisfactorily explain where all energy came from as far as the origination of the universe is concerned. That is transcendent information is the only known entity which can explain where all the energy came from in the Big Bang without leaving the bounds of empirical science as the postulated multiverse does. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, a photon of energy, as transcendent information does in teleportation, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities as energy does possess in the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means according to the first law). To reiterate, since information exercises dominion of energy in quantum teleportation then all information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist.

Reflections on the 'infinite transcendent information' framework, as well as on the 'eternal' and 'temporal' frameworks:

The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight.

Special Relativity - Time Dilation and Length Contraction - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY

Moreover time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole 'time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light' concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same 'thought experiment' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.

,,,Yet, even though light has this 'eternal' attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned.

hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).

Logic also dictates 'a decision' must have been made, by the 'transcendent, eternal, infinite information' from the primary timeless (eternal) reality 'It' inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse.

The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914

Ian, so you're gripe is not with the fact that neo-Darwinists are trying to use the transcendent mathematical logic of statistics to prove that man is a only a material being who doesn't have transcendent component to his being, i.e. doesn't have a mind/soul (lunacy extraordinaire on the neo-Darwinists part to do so), but your gripe is with the fact that reality itself, as revealed by breakthroughs in quantum mechanics, substantiates John 1:1 ??? Hmmm? Well I guess you are just trying to protect 'science'. But perhaps Ian, in order to keep from offending your sensibilities again, you can refresh my memory of exactly how the scientific method is even grounded in your atheistic materialism in the first place so that I may properly respect the boundaries you imagine should be obvious to me!

As I think I've mentioned before, my version of naturalism is that it is the study of natures as well as Nature. A thing's nature is what makes it itself and not something else. Science studies the nature of anything it can observe however indirectly. If science ever finds data which suggests the existence of an immortal soul or god then they will become natural phenomena which can be investigated, at least in principle.

As for quantum physics, my understanding is that it has as greatly extended our understanding of how the universe works at a sub-atomic level. It has revealed phenomena which seem to us to be very strange and counter-intuitive but that is only because they are so different from what we routinely observe at our 'macroscopic' level.

But what has actually changed? We now know, for example, about the phenomenon of entanglement in which if we change the spin, say, of one member of an entangled particle pair the other will exhibit a simultaneous change of spin. Does that mean that now, if we put two billiard balls on a table and spin one, the other will immediately spin in the opposite direction without anyone touching it? I have never heard of such a thing, have you?

As for transcendence, I'm not sure what you mean by it. Science, not faith, has uncovered aspects of reality whose existence was not even suspected until fairly recently. They are certainly very strange to our eyes but that does not make them unnatural or supernatural, just weird to creatures like ourselves of limited knowledge.

I'm fairly certain God will be glad to hear that you consider Him 'natural' when and if you ever come to realize what the evidence is overwhelmingly telling us :) ,,, Or, more perhaps convincingly for you, whenever you reach to Him in a time of need in your life and have a 'personal experience' of Him.

Note as to you trying to limit Quantum Mechanics to the microscopic scale:

LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex­plain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamental­ly spaceless and timeless physics.http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf

further note,

The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins UniversityExcerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

I'm fairly certain God will be glad to hear that you consider Him 'natural' when and if you ever come to realize what the evidence is overwhelmingly telling us :) ,,, Or, more perhaps convincingly for you, whenever you reach to Him in a time of need in your life and have a 'personal experience' of Him

I know that a lot of people have found their faith to be a source of great strength and support in times of personal crisis. If I remember correctly, you yourself once wrote something over on Uncommon Descent about your personal experiences. Religion offers a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose and hope in the face of overwhelming adversity which neither atheism nor agnosticism can match. They are probably amongst the reasons why religion has survived and flourished for thousands of years.

We are fragile and vulnerable creatures who need all the help we can get when things go bad. Personally, I would never do anything to deprive people of whatever support they can get in their hour of greatest need, even if I could.

But that does not mean that those faiths are right. In fact, most if not all of them must be wrong, even though all their followers are firmly convinced that their faith and theirs alone is the right one. How do you know yours is the right one?

Clipping one line of our well-thought out comments and running off to another blog we aren't allowed to post out isn't really going to do much for the conversation.

I'm not going to chase your comments over there after this.

And no, I didn't read all 30,000 words of your link.

Maybe you could answer this in a few sentences: What is 'neo-marxist' or 'Alinsky-style' about private foundations and corporations generating and presenting science standards for Governors to approve?

Isn't your proposal of community based education closer to what Alinsky did?

You say I:"failed to address what happens after the community organisers seize power in institutions.

Simple, they continue their habits — after all they “worked” to get them in power, and end up abusing the power and marginalising and demonising or belittling those who dare to differ with them."

And yet, you propose community organization as a solution to evolution in schools. I'm puzzled. I guess you think you are a better person than Alinsky?

And what did Alinsky accomplish that you find so objectionable? Improving the living conditions of minority communities? Helping Black workers get treated with dignity? Helping Southern blacks vote?

Your blog is a true marketplace of ideas, it speaks well your honest belief in your view to allow it to be challenged. And for allowing your blog to become immersed in the usual materialist ideologue floodtide of ad hominems which makes for a lot more entertaining read than alternative.Thanks

KF: Namecalling, strawman based dismissal of the actual issue raised by design theory:

The issue raised by design theory isn't answered by design theorists.

A designer that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economical state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present in their genomes.

All you've done is push the problem into some explanation-less realm, then claimed you've solved it. However, the problem is still there staring you in the face.

KF: This objector needs to learn that once we look at the “turtles” problem, of warrant for knowledge claims, we end up with turtles all the way down [absurd infinite regress] or turtles in a circle [question-begging] or else the last turtle in the chain of support has to stand somewhere.

Is there a particular reason why you've completely ignored alternate epistemologies as if they simply do not exist?

William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way.

[...]

By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.

Apparently, you do not recognize your pre-enlightenmtne view of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. Therefore, you think it's not necessary to even acknowledge other forms of epistemology.

Well, I'm not going to participate in this. You have every right to say whatever you want wherever you want. That said, it is rude to retreat to a site I can't post at and sound off, telling a one-sided narrative of your imagined victories, your corrections to the record, over here.

If you were interested in a friendly debate, a conversation between equals, you'd talk to me here. I don't think you are.

My only point is that your statement:

"All, duly rubber-stamped by a bi-partisan group of state governors [say the magic word: "consensus"] and a sprinkling of some captains of industry.

Any properly trained Alinsky Rules for Radicals method “Community Organizer” would be drooling at the prospect."

Makes no sense, except as vk explained above, that these are terms you apply without thought to people you don't like.

A: a proposal in a nutshell to found independent community based schools free of impostion of materialist dogma a la NSTA board statement 2000 under false colours of science; with

B: neo-marxist ruthless subversion and ad hominem tactics that then lea don to abuse of power,

Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, which is one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders

"Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a situation. "

KF"it is plain that the real objection and reason why he was turned into a strawman and scapegoat to be smeared publicly, is that he spoke as a Christian."

Kf's link to Klinghoffer,"This is, once again, how Darwinists maintain the fiction that the scientific community has reached a freely determined "consensus" in favor of Darwinian evolution and against competing scientific views like intelligent design. The consensus is maintained by intimidation"

KF: Namely, when we seek to explain what we cannot inspect and observe directly, we must infer to on signs we can detect and examine, in light of known, adequate causes for such signs. And the evidence we have is that functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [the relevant aspects of CSI] is routinely and only observed to be caused by ART, not by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity.

The inference you're referring to depends on assumptions about how knowledge is created. Specifically, pre-enlightenment, authoritative conceptions of human knowledge. It's from these assumptions that you make your appeal to design.

In many cases, it's literally the same theory, with certain types of, such as cosmology or moral knowledge in the form of human rules of behavior, having been spoken to early humans by supernatural beings. In others, it represents parochial aspects of society, such as the existence of monarchs in government or the existence of God in the universe. These assumptions are protected by taboos or taken so uncritically for granted in that they are not even recognized as ideas.

So, it's not that we ignore what we know about designers. It's that you do not recognize your conception human knowledge, which plays a key role in design, as an idea that is subject to criticism and can be improved.

Knowledge is significant in that it represents information that tends to remain in a medium once put there, and is created by a form of conjecture and refutation. In this sense the genome contains the knowelge of how to build the biosphere. Furthermore, there are two kinds of knowledge: non-explanatory knowledge and explanatory knowledge.

People are unique in that not only can we create non-explanatory knowledge, which are rules of thumb, but we can create explanatory knowledge, which is based on explanations. This is because, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, human beings have made the jump to universality in that we are universal explainers.

For example, if I had a genetic condition, I wouldn't want my doctor to base my treatment on the mere logical possibility that changing just any genes in my genome could improve my condition. Rather, I'd want my treatment based on an explanation that specific genes play a hard to vary, specific role in my symptoms and that changing them in a particular way would have a beneficial impact.

Which would you prefer: the former or the latter? Both cases represent conjecture. However, the latter is based on a good explanation.

This is a example of how we've relatively recently focused on good explanations as a criteria for what logical possibilities to test, which is part of our explanation for our relatively recent and rapid increate in the creation of knowledge. Good explanations are deep and hard to vary, while bad expansions are shallow and easily varied. Contrast the our modern day explanation for the seasons, which is hard to vary and depends on a chain of in depended theories, with the ancient Greek explanation for the sessions, which is easily varied and the connects the cast of characters to seasons only by the myth itself.

Evolutionary process also create knowledge using conjecture and refutation. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. However, unlike people, Evolutionary process cannot create explanations. As such, they only create non-explanatory knowledge.

In other words, as designers, we've made progress in how we make progress. And this has an impact on the sort of knowledge we create.

If the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created by a person, then it would take the form of explanatory knowledge. Any more advanced designer would improve upon our explanation for what logical possibilities to test, just as physicist David Deutsch has improved upon Karl Popper's explanation, etc.

However, the sort of knowledge we see in the genome doesn't appear to be explanatory knowledge. Rather it appears to be non-explanatory knowledge in that the majority of conjectured genetic variations are neutral to detrimental.

Had these conjectured variations been based on explanatory knowledge of a highly advanced designer that had the knowledge to design the biosphere, we would expect the majority of conjectured variation to be beneficial, since the designer would have selected them for testing based on a good explanation for how they would result in the desired adaptations.

Note how this is similar to the approach you would want if you were being treated for a genetic disease above.

Correction: Good explanations are deep and hard to vary, while bad expansions are shallow and easily varied. Contrast the our modern day explanation for the seasons, which is hard to vary and depends on a chain of independently formed theories, with the ancient Greek explanation for the sessions, which is easily varied and the connects the cast of characters to seasons only by the myth itself.

KF: You can SAY that. The problem is that if naturalistic evolution = evolutionary materialism is so, and we have no real choice or purpose, not only is it so that there is no ultimate foundation for ethics, but the relative "foundations" we erect boil down to might and manipulation make "right."

Exactly why would this necessarily be the case? The fact that you haven't actually argued for this in any detailed way indicates you do not recognize this as an idea that would be subject to criticism.

For example, is it not logically possible that God created evolutionary mechanisms as a secondary cause and allowed great freedom as to what kind of life would arise, just as he supposedly created gravity as a secondary cause?

If one is genuinely open to the idea that we simply do not know what happens after we die, is it not logically possible that human conciseness could exist in some form after death even if God doesn't exist? Is it not logically possible that God purposely designed us to be material beings that had a finite existence, making that our purpose?

Unfortunately that example is typical. Middle schoolers are also to learn that:

Anatomical similarities and differences between various organisms living today, and between them and organisms in the fossil record, enable the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of evolutionary descent.

CH writes:

Unfortunately that example is typical. Middle schoolers are also to learn that:

Anatomical similarities and differences between various organisms living today, and between them and organisms in the fossil record, enable the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of evolutionary descent.

Again, the young student is confronted with a false dogma that is imposed on the science. Of course the real science enables no such thing. The so-called “lines of evolutionary descent” are contradicted, not supported, by the empirical evidence. Even evolutionists are quietly finally admitting to themselves that the evolution tree doesn’t work. But of course they won’t tell the students.

This is not a "lie". It is absolute true that the data mentioned "the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of evolutionary descent." What is, however, a lie is the allegation that "Even evolutionists are quietly finally admitting to themselves that the evolution tree doesn’t work." I'm not sure what you think "evolutionists" are "admitting", but if it is, for example, that that longitudinal inheritance is not the only mechanism of genetic transfer, sure. But that doesn't mean that "the evolution tree doesn't work".

You then say:At the high school level this evolutionary lie is elaborated:

Genetic information, like the fossil record, also provides evidence of evolution. DNA sequences vary among species, but there are many overlaps; in fact, the ongoing branching that produces multiple lines of descent can be inferred by comparing the DNA sequences of different organisms. Such information is also derivable from the similarities and differences in amino acid sequences and from anatomical and embryological evidence.

The embryological evidence reveals profound non homologous development pathways even in sister species which contradicts the expected evolutionary pattern. Such contradictions are literally ubiquitous in the anatomical and genetic data. Just a few examples we have recently looked at are here, here and here.

Again, the statement is completely true, not a lie, and the embryological evidence has hugely expanded our understanding of how small changes to regulatory sequences can result in substantial changes to the phenotype. These findings may not have been "expected" but surely nobody is claiming that current biology has everything completely wrapped up?

You are completely misrepresentation the state of biological science, and failing to understand that a simplification of a theory is not the same as a misrepresentation of it, and elaboration of a theory is not the same as a falsification of it.

Q/R: Onlookers, I found something of genuine interest in GEM of TKI's delightfully verbose F/R3:

1]GEM of TKI: Further to this, there will be a reason why RC cannot post here — most likely for cause of incivility or obstructionism, he was banned. All that would be required to fix that would be to open a new account and abide by reasonable rules of civility, cogency and relevance instead of side tracking, distortion and denigration. From what is happening where he regularly posts, he is unwilling to abide by reasonable rules.

Notice, it seems that UD's policy is to ban aliases rather than people!

I note, onlookers, this is the first instance in my many years of Internet wanderings in which I find a blog administrator who actually encourages former offenders to morph and come back to post again.

One can always expect to discover more and more peculiarities of that quaint blog they call UD.__________Yours truly,

Just as Dr Liddle was judged by her "questionable" posting choices, you are being held accountable for the behavior of the " rotten apples" that Dr Hunter allows to post, as well as your stubborn insistence on questioning obvious Truth.

It is too late for some of us, but you still have time. Give,Chas S?, a chance to live again. Repent

vel you never listened, or you are purposely playing dumb, to the answer I gave you:

Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.

i.e. to use statistics of any sort the atheists is forced to appeal to 'something outside the circle'. i.e. to something that is 'transcendent' of material reality. i.e. It is impossible to justify the use of statistics by reference solely to material particles!!! Thus the atheistic materialists use of statistics to try to prove we are merely material beings is a self defeating proposition in its formulation, for the atheists is forced to use something that is proven to be transcendent in its foundational basis to try to prove that we have no transcendent component to our being.

notes:

Human Brain Has More Switches Than All Computers on Earth - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/5516446/

Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html

Appraising the brain's energy budget: Excerpt: In the average adult human, the brain represents about 2% of the body weight. Remarkably, despite its relatively small size, the brain accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body. This high rate of metabolism is remarkably constant despite widely varying mental and motoric activity. The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full

THE EFFECT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC ON CEREBRAL CIRCULATION AND METABOLISM Excerpt: Although Lennox considered the performance of mental arithmetic as "mental work", it is not immediately apparent what the nature of that work in the physical sense might be if, indeed, there be any. If no work or energy transformation is involved in the process of thought, then it is not surprising that cerebral oxygen consumption is unaltered during mental arithmetic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC438861/pdf/jcinvest00624-0127.pdf

The preceding experiments are very, very, unexpected for materialists since materialists hold that 'mind' is merely a 'emergent property' of the physical processes of the material brain.

Zach as usual you are completely nonsensical in your post. Vel as to your snide comment, "Pi therefore God":

,,,The following is the very 'different' equation that is found to govern the 'macro' structure of the universe:

0 = 1 + e ^(i*pi) — Euler

Believe it or not, the five most important numbers in mathematics are tied together, through the complex domain in Euler's number, And that points, ever so subtly but strongly, to a world of reality beyond the immediately physical. Many people resist the implications, but there the compass needle points to a transcendent reality that governs our 3D 'physical' reality.

God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e*pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e*pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e*pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=3

(of note; Euler's Number (equation) is more properly called Euler's Identity in math circles.)

Leonhard Euler, the son of a Christian pastor, and a fervent Christian all his life, is simply unparalleled in mathematics:

Moreover Euler’s Identity, rather than just being the most enigmatic equation in math, finds striking correlation to how our 3D reality is actually structured,,,

The following picture, Bible verse, and video are very interesting since, with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere which 'coincidentally' corresponds to the circle of pi within Euler's identity:

Picture of CMBRhttps://webspace.utexas.edu/reyesr/SolarSystem/cmbr.jpg

Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the universe in the video)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

The flatness of the ‘entire’ universe, which 'coincidentally' corresponds to the diameter of pi in Euler’s identity, is found on this following site; (of note this flatness of the universe is an extremely finely tuned condition for the universe that could have, in reality, been a multitude of different values than 'flat'):

This following video shows that the universe also has a primary characteristic of expanding/growing equally in all places,, which 'coincidentally' strongly corresponds to the 'e' in Euler's identity. 'e' is the constant that is used in all sorts of equations of math for finding what the true rates of growth and decay are for any given mathematical problem trying to find as such in this universe:

Centrality of Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/w/8421879

This following video shows how finely tuned the '4-Dimensional' expansion of the universe is (1 in 10^120);

Towards the end of the following video, Michael Denton speaks of the square root of negative 1 being necessary to understand the foundational quantum behavior of this universe. The square root of -1 is also 'coincidentally' found in Euler's identity:

Michael Denton – Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful – Square root of -1 is built into the fabric of reality – videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003918"

I find it extremely strange that the enigmatic Euler's identity, which was deduced centuries ago, would find such striking correlation to how reality is actually found to be structured by modern science. In pi we have correlation to the 'sphere of the universe' as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned 'geometric flatness' within the 'sphere of the universe' that has now been found. In 'e' we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining exponential growth in math that strongly correlates to the fact that space-time is 'expanding/growing equally' in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a 'imaginary number', which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now, as Michael Denton pointed out in the preceding video, it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler's identity, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates, points overwhelmingly to a transcendent Intelligence, with a capital I, which created this universe! It should also be noted that these universal constants, pi,e, and square root -1, were at first thought by many to be completely transcendent of any material basis, to find that these transcendent constants of Euler's identity in fact 'govern' material reality, in such a foundational way, should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine.

Further discussion relating Euler's identity to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics:

"Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence." Stanford University mathematics professor - Dr. Keith Devlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity#Mathematical_beauty

Here are some very well done videos, showing the stringent 'mathematical proofs' of Euler's Identity:

This following website, and video, has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively, for Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1:http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/

Fascinating Bible code – Pi and natural log – Amazing – video (of note: correct exponent for base of Nat Log found in John 1:1 is 10^40, not 10^65 as stated in the video)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg9LiiSVaes

Not at all. You were asked about baseball statistics. It is quite possible to derive baseball statistics without triggering Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. A simple statistics is to simply count the number hits, which must be a finite number. Perhaps numbers are transcendent, but not for that reason.

"If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being."http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4

This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

Epistemology – Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced articlehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

Here is empirical evidence that man has a transcendent, beyond space and time, component to his being (In fact quantum entanglement/information is found to be the entity that is holding all the mass and energy of our bodies so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium):

Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Informationhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem also requires multiplication. If we include multiplication, but limit our system to a finite number (by modifying the successor axiom), then Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not apply. Nor does Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem apply to first-order Euclidean geometry. So does that mean geometry is not transcendent?

'we can draw a circle around the idea that you cannot draw a circle around God';

Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) - Alice in wonderland

------------

'For example, there are first-order axiomatizations of Euclidean geometry, of real closed fields, and of arithmetic in which multiplication is not provably total; none of these meet the hypotheses of Gödel's theorems. The key fact is that these axiomatizations are not expressive enough to define the set of natural numbers or develop basic properties of the natural numbers.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems#Limitations_of_G.C3.B6del.27s_theorems

I understand you. All knowledge flows from God,therefore all knowledge is transcendental.

I always thought that the unreliabilty of an indivdual's perception was one of the motivations to methodological naturalism. If different individuals ended up with the same result ,the probability is higher that the result is correct.

BA: The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.

BA, all you're doing is pushing the problem into some unexplainable realm. You haven't actually solved anything.

For example, by what means do you guarantee God perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy?

Furthermore, the website above is parochial in that it only offers a narrow number of options based on a particular epistemology.

This appears to be yet another example of being unable to recognize any particular conception of human knowledge as idea that would be subject to criticism.

For example, the idea that there is one unchanging moral code is untenable in the face of an open-ended process of creating knowledge. This is because, if knowledge really is created, rather than having always had existed, then we cannot predict what impact the knowledge it will have in the future. Therefore, it's unclear how one could define unchaining rules to prohibit or mandate behavior.

In other words, the sort of objective morality you subscribe to is yet another artifact of the pre-elightemnt, static view of knowledge.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, as the last part of this following video clearly illustrates (the part of the video on Alan Turing), is shown to apply not only to axiom systems but also to material objects:

Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.”

*The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness.

*Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (This extends Godel's incompleteness theorem to elementary particles of the universe and is born out in quantum computation)

*Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete.

i.e. Any material particle you can draw a circle around cannot explain its own continued existence within space-time. Moreover, this incompleteness principle for material particles has now been born out on the empirical level:

,,,Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:

‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm

i.e. Material particles cannot explain their own continued existence within space-time without referring to a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain their continued existence within space-time.

Of note, Theists have always maintained that God, who is beyond space and time, sustains and upholds this universe in its continued existence, whereas materialists, ever since the Greeks, held that the 'atom' was the foundation of reality i.e. that the material particle was 'self-sustaining'.

Revelation 4:10-11They lay their crowns before the throne and say: "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

Further empirical confirmation of Godel's incompleteness theorem as it applies to the universe is found here:

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston (paper delivered at Hawking's 70th birthday party)http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."(Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

As well, Godel's incompleteness theorem, since it does indeed apply to ANY material system in the universe, and the material universe itself, is excellent logical proof for Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument, as well I hold it as excellent logical proof for Aquinas's First, Second, and Third way of his 'the five ways':

notes:

Thomas Aquinas, “The Five Ways”Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml

"The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment."Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Wayhttp://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html

How Did the Universe Begin? (The Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Lane Craig) - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N80AjfHTvQY

Kurt Godel was well aware of the implications of his theorem as the following quotes make clear:

Quotes by Kurt Godel:

"The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit." [6.1.19]

"Consciousness is connected with one unity. A machine is composed of parts." [6.1.21]

"I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical." [6.2.12]

"The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live,,,."

Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) Germany, U.S.A.Gödel, who had the nickname Herr Warum ("Mr. Why") as a child, was perhaps the foremost logic theorist ever, clarifying the relationships between various modes of logic.... He proved that first-order logic was indeed complete, but that the more powerful axiom systems needed for arithmetic (constructible set theory) were necessarily incomplete.http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm#Godel

David Deutsch, like you, also believes there are 10^500 versions of himself in 10^500 parallel universe. Go figure,,, 'something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove',,, Moreover there is that pesky problem for all 10^500 versions of you of the beginning of all material reality.

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston (paper delivered at Hawking's 70th birthday party)http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

notes:

'I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object, which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself' - Scott - Many Worlds proponent http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/neuroscientist-most-seamless-illusions.html?showComment=1334583967799#c7217305678409346277

The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material realityhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

The MWT meets this criteria in ways that significantly differentiates itself from other interpretations of quantum mechanics, while still accepting the same observations. Specifically, it's deep, hard to vary, and has more explanatory power, despite being less complex, in that it does't introduce different, yet unknown laws of physics, which observers supposedly adhere to. It also resolves multiple paradoxes across multiple fields of science..

In other worlds, I do not think the MWT has been proven to be true using observations alone, but that it has withstood significant criticism, while having more informational content. As such, I think it represents the best explanation for quantum mechanics.

So, yes, I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object. which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself in other classical universes that follow the same rules as ours, in including the same laws of physics. The result of which represents a deterministic history, just like ours, except some other logical possible event occurred.

Do you tentatively accept the idea that consciousness precedes all of material reality? I'm guessing there is nothing tentative about it, at all. Also, what well defined criteria is your acceptance based on? Please be specific.

And, I expected, BA changed the subject, despite having make the same argument about GIT. Go figure.

To paraphrase, a caller tried to make the same argument during the interview.

However, Deutsch points out that even when we prove specific things are unknowable, we're still creating knowledge. In other words, in mathematics, proving something is unprovable is just as much progress as proving it's true or false. This leads us to create knowledge about the implications of something being unprovable as well.

So, in the human sense, the application of GIT to mathematics does not represent a barrier to the idea of open-ended progress.

This is yet another example of the sort of hand-waving we see here on a regular basis.

10^500 Scott, in your materialistic view of reality, even as eccentric as that 10^500 materialistic view is, you fail to appreciate the epistemological failure that a materialistic view of reality forces on any knowledge that one may wish hold as true:

The End Of Materialism? - Dr. Bruce Gordon * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

This 'lack of a guarantee', for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;

Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind

What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

Philosopher Sticks Up for God Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism. ~ Alvin Plantinga

The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);

Again, that's not the same kind of multiverse. In fact, I'd suggest the sort of multiverse proposed by string theory is a bad explanation.

Despite correcting you on this over and over again, why do you keep making the same mistake?

For example, in the MWI, each universe follows the same classical laws of physics as ours. As such, it's not the case that anything can happen for no reason, etc.

Also, there an an infinate number of rival interpretations that accept the same observations, yet imply something completely different is going on in reality in regards to quantum mechanics. So, what is your criteria for selection this particular interpretation?

Scott, it doesn't matter whether you accept any particular multiverse scenario that is being proffered by atheists, epistemological failure is unavoidable to a naturalistic worldview period. You simply have no 'consistent identity' of cause, in atheistic materialism/naturalism, in order to make absolute truth claims for your beliefs:

This 'lack of a guarantee', for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;

Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe CarterExcerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind

What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw

Philosopher Sticks Up for GodExcerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’”http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.~ Alvin Plantinga

The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);

Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?)Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely.http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html

Epistemology – Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced articlehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

When I point out the problem with one of your arguments, you switch to another without addressing the issue raised. When I point out the problem with that argument, you switch back, again without addressing the issue raised. It's as if you conveniently forget we ever brought it up before.

Again, it's unclear why we should expect the divine mind to comprehend anything. All you've done is define the divine mind as one that guarantees comprehension. But this solves nothing as you're merely pushed the problem into some unexplainable realm.

Furthermore, one could draw a circle around that assumption, and claim it cannot justify itself. So, we're back to square one.

What's ironic is that you seem aware of the problem of justiicationsm, but then appeal to a for of justiicationsm to solve it. This is what I mean when I say pre-enlightenment views of human knowledge are typically illogical, supernatural or nonexistent.

In the light of these ideas, we can discern a number of possible attitudes towards positions, notably those espoused by relativists, fideists (true believers) and critical rationalists.

Relativists tend to be disappointed justificationists who realize that positive justification cannot be achieved. From this premise they proceed to the conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position.

True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: "Here I stand!". Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism.

According to the critical rationalists, being exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one, (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley does provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference.

In other words, you are projecting your problem on me by assuming that we share strong reasons for belief about anything, let alone evolution. This is the sort of straw man that Cornelius appeals to when he claims that all evolutionists think evolution is true in the same strong sense that he thinks truth exists.

Scott, you have some very bizarre ideas as to how 'knowledge is created' besides the obvious fact that 'truth is discovered' not created. This following video exposes the inherent flaw, i.e. insurmountable limitation, in your way of thinking that 'knowledge is created'.

It is interesting to note, as was pointed out at the start of the preceding video, that although Alan Turing believed humans were merely machines, much like the computers he had envisioned, he failed to realize that his idea for computers came to him, as he said to people later, suddenly, 'in a vision', thus confirming Godel's contention against Turing that humans had access to the 'divine spark of intuition'. A divine spark which enables humans to transcend the limits he, and Turing, had found in his incompleteness theorem for computers, mathematics, and even for all material reality in general.

To further draw this point out, 'gifted' people being able to instantaneously know answers to complex problems, as Turing himself did with his 'vision' of a computer, is something that argues forcefully against the notion that our minds are merely machines. Here are a few examples.

Electrical genius Nicola Tesla was born in Serbia in 1856,,, his father was a clergyman.Excerpt: While walking in Budapest Park, Hungary, Nikola Tesla had seen a vision of a functioning alternating current (AC) electric induction motor. This was one of the most revolutionary inventions in the entire history of the world.http://www.reformation.org/nikola-tesla.html

The boy in this following video rivals, or surpasses, Nikola Tesla as an example of innovative ideas coming fully formed to the mind without any need for trial and error:

Bluejay: The Mind of a Child Prodigy – videohttp://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7186319n

At the 11:50 minute mark of this following video 21 year old world Chess champion Magnus Carlsen explains that he does not know how he knows his next move of Chess instantaneously, that ‘it just comes natural’ to him to know the answer instantaneouly.

A chess prodigy explains how his mind works – videoExcerpt: What’s the secret to Magnus’ magic? Once an opponent makes a move, Magnus instantaneously knows his own next move.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57380913-10391709/a-chess-prodigy-explains-how-his-mind-works/?tag=segementExtraScroller;housing

This ability to 'instantaneously' know answers to complex problems has long been a very intriguing characteristic of some autistic savants;

Is Integer Arithmetic Fundamental to Mental Processing?: The mind's secret arithmeticExcerpt: Because normal children struggle to learn multiplication and division, it is surprising that some savants perform integer arithmetic calculations mentally at "lightning" speeds (Treffert 1989, Myers 1903, Hill 1978, Smith 1983, Sacks 1985, Hermelin and O'Connor 1990, Welling 1994, Sullivan 1992). They do so unconsciously, without any apparent training, typically without being able to report on their methods, and often at an age when the normal child is struggling with elementary arithmetic concepts (O'Connor 1989). Examples include multiplying, factoring, dividing and identifying primes of six (and more) digits in a matter of seconds as well as specifying the number of objects (more than one hundred) at a glance. For example, one savant (Hill 1978) could give the cube root of a six figure number in 5 seconds and he could double 8,388,628 twenty four times to obtain 140,737,488,355,328 in several seconds. Joseph (Sullivan 1992), the inspiration for the film "Rain Man" about an autistic savant, could spontaneously answer "what number times what number gives 1234567890" by stating "9 times 137,174,210". Sacks (1985) observed autistic twins who could exchange prime numbers in excess of eight figures, possibly even 20 figures, and who could "see" the number of many objects at a glance. When a box of 111 matches fell to the floor the twins cried out 111 and 37, 37, 37.http://www.centreforthemind.com/publications/integerarithmetic.cfm

The following video is fairly direct in establishing the 'spiritual' link to man's ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:

The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930

You can see that dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public schools, at this following site;

Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html

The following video is also very suggestive to a 'spiritual' link in man's ability to learn new information in that the video shows that almost every, if not every, founder of each discipline of modern science was a devout Christian:

As well Sir Isaac Newton stated this in regards to his own discoveries:

I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. — Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time

These following articles point out the fact that ‘coincidental scientific discoveries’ are far more prevalent than what should be expected from a materialistic perspective,:

In the Air – Who says big ideas are rare? by Malcolm GladwellExcerpt: This phenomenon of simultaneous discovery—what science historians call “multiples”—turns out to be extremely common. One of the first comprehensive lists of multiples was put together by William Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas, in 1922, and they found a hundred and forty-eight major scientific discoveries that fit the multiple pattern. Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both discovered evolution. Three mathematicians “invented” decimal fractions. Oxygen was discovered by Joseph Priestley, in Wiltshire, in 1774, and by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in Uppsala, a year earlier. Color photography was invented at the same time by Charles Cros and by Louis Ducos du Hauron, in France. Logarithms were invented by John Napier and Henry Briggs in Britain, and by Joost Bürgi in Switzerland. ,,, For Ogburn and Thomas, the sheer number of multiples could mean only one thing: scientific discoveries must, in some sense, be inevitable.http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell/?currentPage=all

List of multiple discoveriesExcerpt: Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of "multiple independent discovery". Robert K. Merton defined such "multiples" as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other.,,, Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries

Kurt Godel was well aware of the deep implications of his incompleteness theorem as the following quotes from Godel make clear:

Quotes by Kurt Godel:

"The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit." [6.1.19]

"Consciousness is connected with one unity. A machine is composed of parts." [6.1.21]

"I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical." [6.2.12]

"The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live,,,."

BA: It is interesting to note, as was pointed out at the start of the preceding video, that although Alan Turing believed humans were merely machines, much like the computers he had envisioned, he failed to realize that his idea for computers came to him, as he said to people later, suddenly, 'in a vision', thus confirming Godel's contention against Turing that humans had access to the 'divine spark of intuition'.

It seems that you cannot stop inserting your foot into your mouth.

I'd again note that Deutsch essentially founded the entire field of quantum computing. This includes developing the first quantum algorithms. In fact, Deutsch has written extensively about the halting problem in papers, such as the Church-Turning-Deutsch principle, along with how the limits to computability imposed by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem would effect the virtual reality rendering of environments in one of his books, through a section on what he calls Cantgotu environments - which he named in honor of Cantor (which spoke at length about Gödel the video you linked to), Gödel and Turning.

Here he makes one of several arguments that reality is comprehensible, in that a single, buildable physical object can mimic all of the behaviors and responses of any other physical process or object.

BA: To further draw this point out, 'gifted' people being able to instantaneously know answers to complex problems, as Turing himself did with his 'vision' of a computer, is something that argues forcefully against the notion that our minds are merely machines.

Regardless of how difficult you might find it to believe, we have made progress in understanding how we make progress. This includes creating knowledge about how we make progress.

As Popper has outlined extensively in several books, we create knowledge via the process of conjecture and refutation. Deutsch expands on this in that, just as calculating machines made the jump to universal Turing machines, human beings made the jump to universal explainers.

The existence of unsolved problems (such as how to implement hard AI in computers) does not necessitate a supernatural cause any more than an unsolved murder necessitates a supernatural criminal that committed it.

BA: The following video is fairly direct in establishing the 'spiritual' link to man's ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963.

Except, there are an infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same observations (historical test results) yet suggest something completely opposite is going on, in reality.

For example, if consciousness precedes reality, then observations of the results wouldn't be evidence of the students performance but evidence that those observations occurred.

BA: These following articles point out the fact that ‘coincidental scientific discoveries’ are far more prevalent than what should be expected from a materialistic perspective,:

What I expect is that we can use an open-ended process of creating knowledge and apply it to the problem of solving problems. Again, we do not test every logical possibility. Rather, we use explanations as our criteria. So, our ability to make scientific discoveries should increase as we improve our criteria of what logical possibilities to test.

Furthermore, we should converge on the same theories because we are left with the same hard to vary assertions about reality that have withstood criticism. Empirical observations are still used, it's just turned on it's head as compared to empiricism.

10^500 epistemological failure Scott, you are quite found of saying (hand-waving) 'infinite number of rival interpretations' whenever confronted with evidence for Theism, yet this saying of yours never seems to apply to what you personally hold near and dear, all 10^500 versions of you!

BA: you are quite found of saying (hand-waving) 'infinite number of rival interpretations' whenever confronted with evidence for Theism, yet this saying of yours never seems to apply to what you personally hold near and dear, all 10^500 versions of you!

I'm quite fond of pointing out that the same general purpose means you use to deny evolutionary theory can be used to deny anything. Including your own supposed evidence.

Also, I forgot the rival interpretation that an intelligent designer, who has no defined limitations, chose to design the world we observe last Thursday. Therefore, the test results couldn't be evidence that students were negatively influenced by the lack of prayer, since they didn't exist. Rather the scores took a downward trend because, "That's just what the designer must have wanted.", when he created the world we observe last Thursday.

One humongous problem, Scott, with all you conjecture as to how we discover truth ('create knowledge' in your view), you still believe that there are 10^500 versions of yourself. Shoot you even fervently believe you have irrefutable mathematical proof that proves there is 10^500 versions of yourself. Thus regardless of how reasonable you may seem to yourself, to me you are not even in the ballpark of reasonableness.

BA: One humongous problem, Scott, with all you conjecture as to how we discover truth ('create knowledge' in your view), you still believe that there are 10^500 versions of yourself.

Again, I tentatively accept this as the best explanation. And the problem with this is? Please be specific.

See the criteria I'm using, which you didn't include in your quote and keep ignoring.

BA: Shoot you even fervently believe you have irrefutable mathematical proof that proves there is 10^500 versions of yourself.

Are you really hungry? I'm asking because you keep firmly planing your own foot in your mouth.

Except, I'm a critical rationalist, which means I do not think it's possible to positively prove anything is true in the sense you're implying.

See the excerpt from the Beginning of Infinity as found here, which Deutsch outlines the problem with empiricism.

From the end of the excerpt ...

But no one has ever managed to formulate a ‘principle of induction’ that is usable in practice for obtaining scientific theories from experiences. Historically, criticism of inductivism has focused on that failure, and on the logical gap that cannot be bridged. But that lets inductivism off far too lightly. For it concedes inductivism’s two most serious misconceptions.

First, inductivism purports to explain how science obtains predictions about experiences. But most of our theoretical knowledge simply does not take that form. Scientific explanations are about reality, most of which does not consist of anyone’s experiences. Astrophysics is not primarily about us (what we shall see if we look at the sky), but about what stars are: their composition and what makes them shine, and how they formed, and the universal laws of physics under which that happened. Most of that has never been observed: no one has experienced a billion years, or a light year; no one could have been present at the Big Bang; no one will ever touch a law of physics - except in their minds, through theory. All our predictions of how things will look are deduced from such explanations of how things are. So inductivism fails even to address how we can know about stars and the universe, as distinct from just dots in the sky.

The second fundamental misconception in inductivism is that scientific theories predict that ‘the future will resemble the past’, and that ‘the unseen resembles the seen’ and so on. (Or that it ‘probably’ will.) But in reality the future is unlike the past, the unseen very different from the seen. Science often predicts - and brings about - phenomena spectacularly different from anything that has been experienced before. For millennia people dreamed about flying, but they experienced only falling. Then they discovered good explanatory theories about flying, and then they flew - in that order. Before 1945, no human being had ever observed a nuclear-fission (atomic-bomb) explosion; there may never have been one in the history of the universe. Yet the first such explosion, and the conditions under which it would occur, had been accurately predicted - but not from the assumption that the future would be like the past. Even sunrise - that favourite example of inductivists - is not always observed every twenty-four hours: when viewed from orbit it may happen every ninety minutes, or not at all. And that was known from theory long before anyone had ever orbited the Earth.

Why do you keep making the same mistake, over and over again, despite being corrected, over and over again?

Do you have problems forming short term memories? What other conclusion do you expect us to reach?

You complain about my mental abilities and yet Scott you still believe there are 10^500 versions of yourself. Moreover some of these 10^500 versions of yourself think you are insane for believing in 10^500 versions of yourself. Guess you just can't argue with such sound reasoning as that!

Why should I bother responding if your going to quote mine my comments?

All you did was copy and paste sentences out of content, then claim there were based on a straw man or express incredulity.

If I am working from a straw man, then why don't you explain how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary processes do not fit that explanation? Please be specific.

My prediction is that you'll either suggest that the knowledge of how to build adaptations in the biosphere wasn't created but had always existed (which is yet another parochial, pre-enlightment idea that would be subject to criticism), present a conception of knowledge that is illogical, supernatural, or run from the question, in that you have no explanation (nonexistent).

In other words, our UNscientific evolutionary myth is so weak that we cannot allow anyone to expose or challenge it in the classroom until we have the students brainwashed/indoctrinated that it's a 'fact'.

KF: Did you bother to read the explanation of the issue as linked? Did you bother to take time to read its roots on the record in Plato in the laws Bk X [i.e. the challenge is 2350 years old and unanswered for that duration . . . ], as not only linked but cited to you all?

Yes. Popper has address these issues at length in multiple books, including The Open Society and Its Enemies, in which he reference Plato specifically. You can find a PDF version of his book online using Google.

In addition, David Deutsch touches on the problem with this pre-enlightenmnt conception of human knowledge in the following radio interview. An introduction from Deutsch's new book, The Beginning of Infinity, in which he roughly outlines his view on explanations and the role they play in creating knowledge, can be found further down the page.

You've repeatedly avoided responded. You seem to be saying that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is a signature of transcendence. We can easily construct arithmetics that avoid Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Also, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem does not apply to first-order Euclidean geometry. Does that mean geometry is not transcendent?

Zach you fail to appreciate, as is usual for you to purposely do, what was clearly laid out for you (and substantiated by empirical confirmation), in that Godel's incompleteness applies to material reality. ,,, Please tell me exactly what is the payoff for me to deal with such irrationality on your part? You may insist you are being rational but I see nothing but a dog chasing his tail in a circle!

You were asked a simple question. Are baseball statistics transcendent? You replied about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. We pointed out that you can have baseball statistics without running into Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, such as by simple counting.

Statistics are not reality, but mathematical models of reality, so you still haven't answered the question. You could have simply said, sure, or surely not, then explained your position. But you didn't; hence, the repeated attempts to pry loose an answer.

bornagain77: Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.

Except that physical systems are finite, so there is a finite number of possible configurations; hence, physical systems do not meet the successor axiom of number theory.

Zach, due to repeated episodes of you ignoring direct evidence put right in front of you, on this and many other threads, and because you continually argue against all reason and evidence to a irrational position of materialistic atheism, I refuse to reiterate the evidence already cited. It simply is a waste of time and pointless for me to do so.

F/R: Onlookers, I have had opportunity to pass back this morning. No great surprise to bsee the trifecta distract, distort and polarise tactics in full swing. I have responded specifically, called attention to the underlying issues and highlighted what failure to address evo mat's IS-OUGHT gap entails, here. Along the way, since it is connected to the pivotal issues raised by CH in the OP above and in my own response at UD, I have also paused to address the significance of cosmological fine tuning and our finding ourselves inescapably under moral government, for the issue Sc raised when he said: >> Do you tentatively accept the idea that consciousness precedes all of material reality? . . . what well defined criteria is your acceptance based on?>> KF

I call it to the attention of any onlookers that it is discourteous, to say the least, to post a lengthy contribution to a debate being conducted in one forum to a different one from which, as you well know, many of your opponents are banned. I am not the first person to point this out either.

On the question of the IS-OUGHT gap, I freely concede that there is no way to ground 'ought' in 'is'. Moral judgments are necessarily subjective and that would include those of any putative deity. Claims for an objective morality are incoherent on my understanding of 'objective' and smack too much of an attempt to claim unwarranted authority for the moral prescriptions of one faith over all others.

As for "morsl government", which is usually a euphemism for some form of theocracy, we have too many examples from history of what follows when one religion gains control of the organs of political power to want to repeat those experiments. That is, after all, why the Founding Fathers insisted on the separation of church and state.

At Emory University, Consternation over Ben Carson, Evolution, and Morality - Richard Weikart - May 10, 2012Excerpt: If Emory University (biology) professors want to argue that evolution has no ethical implications, they are free to make that argument (I wonder how many of them actually believe this). However, if they do, they need to recognize that they are not just arguing against "benighted" anti-evolutionists, but against many of their cherished colleagues in evolutionary biology, including Darwin himself.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/at_emory_univer_1059491.html

This following video humorously reveals the absolute bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground objective beliefs within a materialistic reductionist worldview;

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy)http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

What Lies Behind Growing Secularism by William Lane Craig - May 2012 - podcast (steep decline in altruism of young people since early 1960's)http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-lies-behind-growing-secularism

AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growthhttp://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html

The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930

You can see that dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public schools, at this following site;

The following video is very suggestive to a 'spiritual link' in man's ability to learn new information in that the video shows that almost every, if not every, founder of each discipline of modern science was a devout Christian:

So Ian why is your subjective opinion of whether something is morally 'discourteous' suppose to be objectively binding to others who don't find it to be so?

Where did I ever claim that my personal opinion was objectively binding (whatever that means) on anyone?

In case you're interested my view is that morality is based in our common interests as human beings: I don't want to be killed and I'm pretty sure you don't either and neither do most other people so we agree that it's best if we all refrain from going around killing each other. What's to prevent some psychopath from going around raping any woman he chooses? All the women who would prefer not to be raped and all their male relatives and friends who would also take a very dim view of it, that's who.

Are you really saying that you would not be able to tell right from wrong yourself, that you only know something is wrong because your God has said so?

the 'moral landscape' of humans argument has already been addressed and refuted by Dr. Craig. In fact the refutation against the argument is SO STRONG that Dr. Craig calls the refutation a 'knock down argument'.

Further record. In effect having conceded the point, the objectors are trying to pretend there is no serious alternative. Fail.

GEM has chosen to publish a lengthy commentary at Ucommon Descent which I feel calls for an equally detailed response. However, this is Dr Hunter's blog and I would not want to abuse his hospitality by taking up too much space here with my reply. If he prefers I can take it to another forum.

It might be instructive if you explained this argument, which you make on Uncommon Descent: "the inherently good Creator God is NOT a small-g god, and his character is indeed an objective grounding for morality. The good is not separate from God, and the good is not the arbitrary will of God."

Some of the questions on your comment: (1) Is the distinction between big-g and little-g gods rooted in anything specific? (2) Then, how exactly did you establish that his character--however his character is determined by people--is an objective grounding for morality? (3) When you say "an" objective ground, do you mean that his character is one of (possibly) many other objective grounds? What are these other grounds, or did you really mean "the" objective ground of morality? If you mean there is only one objective ground of morality, what is the basis for the claim?

I also want to make a comment on worlviews and the foundations of them. On my blog, you and I have together built up a worldview from the principles of right reason, as you called them. My sense of that undertaking was that it was fairly easy to construct a reasonable worldview with no requirement for either a big-g or little-g god. In fact, it seemed that seeking to shoehorn in a big-g god was a source of confusion and logical gymnastics.

That discussion, in its last installment, was here (and note the comments, also). I give the link in case you or others want to review that discussion. I imagine that this trhead here may not be the best place to continue discussion on the topic.

Kindly cf here and onwards [as I had linked from the beginning in linking the relevant section], e,g. here. The difference between the gods that were targetted in the dilemma argument and the inherently good creator God of theism that the argument has been improperly extended to should be obvious, and has long been expressed by the use of capitalisation. The good cannot be separated from its source AND will show itself by its contrast with the fundamental incoherence and chaotic destructiveness of evil; the good is our "reasonable service."

For instance, as linked, when Locke set out to ground principles of liberty and justice in Ch 2 sect 5 of his second essay on civil gov't, he cites "the judicious [Anglican Canon, Richard] Hooker:____

>> . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant [--> notice, his rooting in our equal moral worth stamped by imago dei and implying reciprocal duties of care; I hardly need to recite the history of imagined superiority of the superman, other than to allude: that cats have no empathy for mice] . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80] >>

____

And, as such a pivotal cite c 1690 from a key work c 1594 shows,this is hardly a novelty, as you suggest by leading questions.